The Chicken Littles Are Hammering Trump on Trade, but Charles Payne's Truth Bombs Blow Their Theorie

[Bigun]

Not true.  The Chinese do require joint ventures with Chinese companies.  And with a few industries like distilleries, printing, airplane manufacture, etc., they limit foreign ownership to minority status.  But any requirement to share intellectual property is negotiated with the American companies.  The problem here is that the American companies are too stupid and too shortsighted that they cannot see beyond the profits they'll reap four quarters into the future - totally oblivious to the fact that for their new factory, someone else in China built 20 more exactly like it.

I just dealt with this situation with a company that makes catalysts.  They are now building a plant in China - effectively teaching the Chinese how to manufacture their catalyst.  And they are fools for doing so, because five years from now this factory (as well as their factories in the US) will be competing against the 20 new Chinese factories.  Because in that Asian culture, stealing intellectual property is considered "good business".  And we know this, yet we keep giving it all away.

It is our own damn fault.  Our short term greed is our demise.  It has nothing to do with tariffs.  It is just the way China does business.  And American companies are stupid as hell to play along.

So what can the government do?  First of all, STOP TAXING MONEY THAT IS EARNED OVERSEAS!!!!!  If companies like GM that are making HUGE profits in China were allowed to bring that money back into the US without penalty, then we could modernize here and maintain a competitive advantage.  But our country penalizes companies for bringing that wealth back home.  So what does GM do?  They keep investing that money overseas, helping China out even more.

The key is to get rid of taxes - not to invent new ones.


In the late 1800's, tiny England was kicking our ass in industrial output.




Spain was running hefty trade surpluses in the 16th and 17th centuries.


China's goal is to dominate Asia.  And if it takes 500 years for them to do that, they are OK with it.

However, the Chinese government's attempts at picking its own winners and losers is backfiring on them big time, just like it did with Japan.  Their steel industry is now overproducing, and they are selling steel at a loss within their own country.  (And no, they can't make that up in volume.)

Now if you deem this a matter of national security, then by all means shut off trade with China just as we have with Cuba and North Korea.  But do not for even a second pretend that placing a tariff on steel and aluminum is going to fix this.  And do not pretend either that America's economic might will improve.  It won't.  Everyone's standard of living will go down.


I can't speak for others, but this poster has asked you repeatedly to show how a tax increase is going to improve our economy.  Nothing libertarian about it.  It is a simple question of economics.  Because it didn't make sense when Obama said it.  And it doesn't make sense when you say it either.

@Hoodat

Excellent and thoroughly factual post from beginning to end!

IF we would just put our on tax policy in order the rest would take care of itself!

The problem the elites see is that putting our on tax policy in order takes away most of the power Washington has over us!

[Hoodat]

So being against something that has failed over and over - for obvious economic reasons - is "hate for it"

Not just 'hate'.  But "knee-jerk hate".  When you take the time to examine hard data, identify the causal connection, apply critical thinking skills to analyze the validity of the cause, and then compare that analysis against other historical examples - well, that is "knee-jerk".  But when you openly admit that you know nothing about economics, tariffs, etc., yet pick a side from the very beginning, and then disparage those of us who did think critically with an open mind - well, there's nothing "knee-jerk hate" about that.

Speaking of, it is about time for today's 'Two Minute Hate'.  Damn that tariff-hating Emmanuel Goldstein!

[INVAR]

When you take the time to examine hard data, identify the causal connection, apply critical thinking skills to analyze the validity of the cause, and then compare that analysis against other historical examples - well, that is "knee-jerk".  But when you openly admit that you know nothing about economics, tariffs, etc., yet pick a side from the very beginning, and then disparage those of us who did think critically with an open mind - well, there's nothing "knee-jerk hate" about that.

It is when it contradicts whatever Trump says or thinks at any given moment, subject to change like the wind. 

Propping him us as savior is Job One for the acolytes who argue every ridiculous and Liberal position or action he has voiced or taken.


Also, emoting shit-stirrers are not interested in facts, figures, charts or history.  They have their opinion and it's 'knee-jerk' 'hate' to have a different view.

[edpc]

I think you've made your position pretty clear so your posts are beginning to blur.  It's hardly political posturing when so many people have a knee-jerk hate for it.  It may be posturing to some other countries.

If the threat of tariffs with no exceptions is made (which he tweeted just recently), then not implemented, you can’t call it anything other than posturing.  While my position on this doesn’t surprise you, neither am I shocked when you walk into a discussion and display near total ignorance on a subject.  Talk about consistency.

[txradioguy]

If the threat of tariffs with no exceptions is made (which he tweeted just recently), then not implemented, you can’t call it anything other than posturing.  While my position on this doesn’t surprise you, neither am I shocked when you walk into a discussion and display near total ignorance on a subject.  Talk about consistency.

QFT

[XenaLee]

If the threat of tariffs with no exceptions is made (which he tweeted just recently), then not implemented, you can’t call it anything other than posturing.  While my position on this doesn’t surprise you, neither am I shocked when you walk into a discussion and display near total ignorance on a subject.  Talk about consistency.

Rush is trying to Trumpsplain his tariffs stance AWS.  It's not working (at least, not for me).

What does it matter if 'stuff' costs more if you don't have a job.  It matters a lot, Rush.  Cause more people are unable to afford to buy 'stuff' due to higher prices due to tariffs (duh).

Rush seems to think that the only people that buy 'stuff' is people that need or are looking for a job.  WTF???

[DB]

There are no shortcuts around competing. You can't hide from it by building trade barriers for very long.

It is the underpinnings of the rise and fall of nations.

[INVAR]

Rush is trying to Trumpsplain his tariffs stance AWS.  It's not working (at least, not for me).

Rush seems to think that the only people that buy 'stuff' is people that need or are looking for a job.  WTF???

Limbaugh has gone True Believer and has discarded any credibility to anything he has ever paid lip service to.  I continue to find my dumping his services and turning him off during the closing days of the primary in 2016 was good discernment of where he was going to end up.

[DB]

Limbaugh has gone True Believer and has discarded any credibility to anything he has ever paid lip service to.  I continue to find my dumping his services and turning him off during the closing days of the primary in 2016 was good discernment of where he was going to end up.

I think Rush simply goes where his market is. He's a salesman/entertainer.

[edpc]

Rush is trying to Trumpsplain his tariffs stance AWS.  It's not working (at least, not for me).

I really appreciated his efforts to Trumpsplain, right after he went through telling us about every golf club he had in his bag.  A real man of the people.

[XenaLee]

I really appreciated his efforts to Trumpsplain, right after he went through telling us about every golf club he had in his bag.  A real man of the people.

Well, I usually agree with Rush on most things.  Not on this tariffs issue, however.

[XenaLee]

Limbaugh has gone True Believer and has discarded any credibility to anything he has ever paid lip service to.  I continue to find my dumping his services and turning him off during the closing days of the primary in 2016 was good discernment of where he was going to end up.

My stance on Rush and what he says and believes is the same that I have (here) on posters that I usually agree with... or agree with on most issues.   You don't have to hold my exact same beliefs on every single issue, 100% of the time, for me to consider you to be on "my side" of the political spectrum.   After all...

nobody's perfect.   

[Emjay]

If the threat of tariffs with no exceptions is made (which he tweeted just recently), then not implemented, you can’t call it anything other than posturing.  While my position on this doesn’t surprise you, neither am I shocked when you walk into a discussion and display near total ignorance on a subject.  Talk about consistency.

@blah blah blah I mean, @edpc.  Unlike some of the phonies on here, I have freely admitted I don't fully understand, free trade, fair trade, tariffs, etc.

However, much of what @jpsb just sounds true and sensible and that's more than I can say for you.

[Emjay]

I did drop Rush for a while, mostly because it was so hard to listen to him here.

But, he pops up a lot on Facebook and he always makes a lot of sense.  Yes, he is a Trump supporter so to some here that disqualifies him as someone to respect.

But, yeah, Rush has always been good at cutting through the hype and seeing things with a common sense point of view.

[Emjay]

I really appreciated his efforts to Trumpsplain, right after he went through telling us about every golf club he had in his bag.  A real man of the people.

@ed  Please, give it a rest.  Rush fills 3 hours a day 5 days a week.  Occasionally, he veers off into subjects that interest him.  I remember when it was Apple.  Then it was NFL stuff.  Then it was ties.  Now, it's golf.

So ignorant.  You probably couldn't talk for ten coherent minutes without using all your little code words, could you?

[edpc]

Unlike some of the phonies on here, I have freely admitted I don't fully understand, free trade, fair trade, tariffs, etc.

Yet, you possess a device that can provide all the knowledge you would ever want. Get some intellectual curiosity.

[Emjay]

Yet, you possess a device that can provide all the knowledge you would ever want. Get some intellectual curiosity.

@edpc   I realize you need a hobby, but give it a rest.  I've read everything I can find on this particular subject and there are a lot of differing opinions, some seem to make more sense to me than others.

[edpc]

@edpc   I realize you need a hobby, but give it a rest.  I've read everything I can find on this particular subject and there are a lot of differing opinions, some seem to make more sense to me than others.

With every post, I am more and more convinced you tried to research tariffs and ended up reading traffic reports.

[Emjay]

With every post, I am more and more convinced you tried to research tariffs and ended up reading traffic reports.

I doubt seriously if you bothered to read the article I posted this morning but here are some excerpts from it:

"Yet the entire US economy is based on “tariffs” the left seem now so upset about: taxes, subsidies and regulation that undermines market competition and consumer welfare. What do they plan to do with the tariff economy they themselves helped create?

One of the biggest offenders is government “protection” of domestic farms—corn, soybeans, milk, cheese, chickens and the like—to the tune of $25 billion in annual subsidies. Though sold as a way of protecting the family farm, 85 percent of this money goes to big agri corporations. Not only do these subsidies lead to higher prices at the supermarket, but other harmful effects too. For instance, the feds often buy up unsold food stuffs to maintain artificial price levels, but then have to find some way to get rid of them. Sometimes this surplus goes to food banks; other times its dumped on poorer countries like Haiti, crippling their agricultural industry.

Likewise, “green” energy policies come with a high price tag—all passed onto taxpayers, or consumers in the form of higher prices. President Obama’s push for renewable energy subsidies ended up costing taxpayers $26 billion over five years, or more than $11 million per job created. Solyndra, of course, was the biggest boondoggle of the bunch, with the company receiving some $500 million in loans with no permanent jobs to show for it—the company went bankrupt in 2011. Put differently, green jobs come at the expense of other, more efficient economic activity. In studying green subsidies in his country, economist Gabriel Calzada found that 2.2 jobs in Spain were lost for every green job created."

How upset did you get about President Obama almost destroying the economy over his 'green' obsession?  Nada, probably because Trump wasn't involved.

Look, you have been both ignorant and nasty to me.  I am reluctantly putting you on ignore because you also seem obsessed with me.

[INVAR]

I really appreciated his efforts to Trumpsplain, right after he went through telling us about every golf club he had in his bag.  A real man of the people.

[txradioguy]

With every post, I am more and more convinced you tried to research tariffs and ended up reading traffic reports.

 

[txradioguy]

My stance on Rush and what he says and believes is the same that I have (here) on posters that I usually agree with... or agree with on most issues.   You don't have to hold my exact same beliefs on every single issue, 100% of the time, for me to consider you to be on "my side" of the political spectrum.   After all...

nobody's perfect.   

But if you go back and look at what he said before he became so enamored with Trump...which actually started around 2011 he's totally changed from the belief system that got him to where he is today.

[edpc]

Look, you have been both ignorant and nasty to me.  I am reluctantly putting you on ignore because you also seem obsessed with me.

Oh, no....look....he's calling the crisis hotline.  Nevermind, false alarm....edpc just accidentally knocked the phone off the hook reaching for a coffee cup.

[DB]

I doubt seriously if you bothered to read the article I posted this morning but here are some excerpts from it:

"Yet the entire US economy is based on “tariffs” the left seem now so upset about: taxes, subsidies and regulation that undermines market competition and consumer welfare. What do they plan to do with the tariff economy they themselves helped create?

One of the biggest offenders is government “protection” of domestic farms—corn, soybeans, milk, cheese, chickens and the like—to the tune of $25 billion in annual subsidies. Though sold as a way of protecting the family farm, 85 percent of this money goes to big agri corporations. Not only do these subsidies lead to higher prices at the supermarket, but other harmful effects too. For instance, the feds often buy up unsold food stuffs to maintain artificial price levels, but then have to find some way to get rid of them. Sometimes this surplus goes to food banks; other times its dumped on poorer countries like Haiti, crippling their agricultural industry.

Likewise, “green” energy policies come with a high price tag—all passed onto taxpayers, or consumers in the form of higher prices. President Obama’s push for renewable energy subsidies ended up costing taxpayers $26 billion over five years, or more than $11 million per job created. Solyndra, of course, was the biggest boondoggle of the bunch, with the company receiving some $500 million in loans with no permanent jobs to show for it—the company went bankrupt in 2011. Put differently, green jobs come at the expense of other, more efficient economic activity. In studying green subsidies in his country, economist Gabriel Calzada found that 2.2 jobs in Spain were lost for every green job created."

How upset did you get about President Obama almost destroying the economy over his 'green' obsession?  Nada, probably because Trump wasn't involved.

Look, you have been both ignorant and nasty to me.  I am reluctantly putting you on ignore because you also seem obsessed with me.

Look up strawman argument. The above is an example of it.

[INVAR]

Look, you have been both ignorant and nasty to me.  I am reluctantly putting you on ignore because you also seem obsessed with me.

Uh oh @edpc.  Looks like you won a screening of Emjay's latest picture: